a little one-sided maybe

September 5, 2004 2:43 PM

Bush's missing service year and missing records? no worries. Bush wearing a medal he didn't earn? no problemos. Kerry's 5 Vietnam war medals? Pentagon inquiry. [reg maybe required: use mefi/mefi]
posted by kv (161 comments total)

I know I've been bitching about news and Bush posts, but Oh. My. God. If this is true (and it looks legitimate) this is a clear abuse of power by members of the Bush administration and Pentagon officials.

I've been trying to argue that the Democrats should rise above the fray and attempt to be as dignified as possible. But this is so egregious, so dirty, I may be losing that argument. Seriously.
posted by elwoodwiles at 2:53 PM on September 5, 2004

this is probably very bad news for techgnollogic.
posted by quonsar at 2:54 PM on September 5, 2004

A wide-eyed boy stares into the distance at a cloud of smoke. "Daddy, what's that?" he asks.

"That's America's political culture, son," says his father. "It went off the rails a couple miles back, but it was going so fast that it just kept plowing on. And then it hit a big pile of manure, and it exploded."

"Oh," the boy replies. A pause. "Can I have ice cream for dinner?"

"Sure," says his father. "Why not?"
posted by gompa at 2:59 PM on September 5, 2004

Did Judicial Watch also call for an inquiry into Bush's national guard service and medals? How bipartisan are they?
posted by srboisvert at 3:03 PM on September 5, 2004

Please tell me this isn't what it looks like. Please. Someone?

I have no words.
posted by snarkywench at 3:04 PM on September 5, 2004

Two bulls are standing on a hill. The wide-eyed young bull points down a hill at some grazing cows.

"Daddy! Daddy! Let's run down the hill and fuck one of them cows!"

"No son," replies the wizened old bull...
posted by quonsar at 3:05 PM on September 5, 2004

This could be very bad news for Bush, because the best thing for Kerry to do now is submit to the enquiry, insist it be televised and public, and then demand a similar enquiry into Bush's conduct during the war.

Elwoodwiles, the trouble is that it's difficult for liberals to engage in the kind of undignified, egregious and dirty fray that the ChimpChumps specialize in. Part of being a liberal is considering things from other people's points of view. For instance, the thing with Newt Gingrich's divorcing his wife while she was in hospital with cancer: we look at that, and we wonder what the full story was. Maybe she actually was the total harpy a man like Gingrich could be expected to marry, and what seems to people to be her time of need, could have been her only time of weakness. We hear of GWB's drug and alcohol problems, and our reaction is compassion. And so on.

Our first instinct is compassion, and we must make an effort to be contemptuous. For a ChimpChump, it's the other way around.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 3:12 PM on September 5, 2004

Here's the Judicial Watch website. Looking at the front page content it's a stretch to call them nonpartisan.

So, now that I've caught my breath, I'll argue that this is the kind of dirty trick that willl very likely backfire. It's hard to see this "investigation" as anything other then a smear campaign. While the right wing pundits and their followers may jump all over this, many undecided voters will see this as a attempt to manipulate and distort John Kerry's war record. It's so obvious that the Bush administration is pulling strings that perhaps they will finally lose the facade of credibility with undecided voters.

on preview: Ah, yes, what aeschenkarnos said.
posted by elwoodwiles at 3:15 PM on September 5, 2004

To be one-upped by quonsar - truly, it almost makes this post good news . . .
posted by gompa at 3:18 PM on September 5, 2004

Judicial Watch is in no way "bipartisan." They made their name filing dozens of frivilous lawsuits against the Clinton administration.
posted by aaronetc at 3:23 PM on September 5, 2004

Only one item in the JW Store "monthly showcase":

Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years by Rich Lowry ($27.95)

"Showing how a politician with grandiose ambitions became a cautious, poll-driven placeholder and how a president who yearned to confront a great international crisis cringed and still shrank from the threat of Islamic terrorism when it arrived, Lowry destroys Clinton's record as president and sparks an intense debate about the nature of his legacy."

That's nonpartisan. Yep.
posted by 327.ca at 3:23 PM on September 5, 2004

How bipartisan are they?

Judicial Watch is led by, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, a well known conservative activist
posted by Spork65 at 3:30 PM on September 5, 2004

gompa = genius
posted by Satapher at 3:40 PM on September 5, 2004

also : to live outside the law you must be honest
posted by Satapher at 3:41 PM on September 5, 2004

I'm sure John Kerry will be happy to set the record straight and remove all doubt regarding the question of the legitimacy of his medals.
posted by techgnollogic at 3:43 PM on September 5, 2004

I'll argue that this is the kind of dirty trick that will very likely backfire.

I think that the people who will react negatively to this sort of thing have already done so based on prior (and continuing) attacks on Kerry's record. I can't see any further backlash against Bush based on this.

Sorry but if people have their head up their asses enough to swallow any of the Bush lies then what makes you think that they won't accept this?

Especially since it looks like another "third party" attack against Kerry that isn't coming from the Bush camp (sham though that is).
posted by pixelgeek at 3:46 PM on September 5, 2004

This is my punishment for thinking the Purple Heart bandaids were going to be the official new low of American elections.

Fucking cowards. Absolute fucking cowards. I'm not for the war, I don't agree with Kerry's position on the war, I don't vote for Kerry because he went to war. I vote for him because he's not the biggest lying sack-of-shit hypocrite who ever sat in the White House.

"Exaggerated the significance of combat incidents." Shit. Two dozen people running the war from the White House and outside of signing execution orders the only one to ever kill a man is Bush's fucking wife.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 3:46 PM on September 5, 2004

Anyone thinking this isn't running should google up "Kerry DD214."

As Rove said, by the time they're done, people won't even know what side Kerry fought on.

As to one upping Bush on this? Forget it. That assumes the media will play fair.
posted by eriko at 3:48 PM on September 5, 2004

then what techgnollogic?
posted by Satapher at 3:49 PM on September 5, 2004

Judicial Watch has their own press release on this. It says that filed a "formal complaint and request for investigation, determination and final disposition of the awards granted to Lieutenant (junior grade) John Forbes Kerry, U.S. Naval Reserve," which is what has been granted.

Can't we just file a formal complaint and request for investigation concerning Bush wearing a medal that he didn't receive, his transfer, and/or his general lack of military service?
posted by bitpart at 3:51 PM on September 5, 2004

Isn't there an LBJ quote about accusing his opponent in a political campaign of being a pig fucker not because he thinks he really is a pig fucker, but because he wants to hear him publicly deny that he fucks animals?

If this investigation is anything like what this article makes it out to be, Kerry's service in Vietnam will become a liability. The fact that there was an official investigation into his service record legitimizes the charges made in the Swift Boat ads.

He has only himself to blame. Everyone knew such attacks were coming (think McCain 2000). Standing by while the controversy over his service grew and grew was absolutely inexcusable. He's sure to lose if the people currently running his campaign are still there this time next week. They can't get the job done. Fire them.
posted by crank at 3:51 PM on September 5, 2004

One things for certain, this is going to be a horrible two months for all but the most cynical and apathetic of us.

By the time we do elect a president, we will actually hate each other, and whomever we elect.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 4:00 PM on September 5, 2004

words fail me.

But you would think with all the eyewitnesses to come forward on Kerry's side, and the lack of any eyewitnesses on the other side.... ahhh forget it. There is no fairness, no justice, no logic, no reason, no intellgence whatsoever left in the American political system.
Maybe it is time to move back to the U.S. And buy a gun.
posted by bashos_frog at 4:12 PM on September 5, 2004

I don't give a rat's ass what Bush did 35 years ago because he ain't basing his campaign for re-election on it. I also wouldn't give a rat's ass what Kerry did 35 years ago, except for this little tidbit: it's the CENTERPIECE of his campaign. What else is the opposition supposed to question and challenge, or do you think Kerry is somehow entitled to the presidency?? Kerry certainly does because he's made it abundantly clear that he thinks the only people who can speak about his record of service and activities after the war are people who agree with him.

Even though I still may vote for Kerry (as a vote "against" Bush), I'm becoming increasingly convinced that he's a big phoney.
posted by Oat at 4:15 PM on September 5, 2004

I'll argue that this is the kind of dirty trick that will very likely backfire.

I'll argue that this is the kind of naivete that keeps the Democrats from winning elections.
posted by bashos_frog at 4:17 PM on September 5, 2004

I don't like that George W. Bush, you know.










There's just something about him.










Can't quite put my finger on it.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 4:24 PM on September 5, 2004

Vietnam is Kerry's tarbaby. And, he's the one who brought the subject up. If Bush is lucky, Kerry will continue to talk about Vietnam.

Kerry's staff gave him good advice: "let the swift boat criticism go" But, he broke discipline and fired back, thereby requiring coverage by the slavishly liberal established media, which until then had ignored the story.

So, now Kerry is upset and is firing his Ted Kennedy derived staffers in favor of those from Clinton's administration. The Clintonians of course understand that Hillary only has a chance at the Presidency if Kerry loses.

This is all spectacularly bad judgement by Kerry. And it both justifies and ensures his defeat.
posted by paleocon at 4:24 PM on September 5, 2004

it's the CENTERPIECE of his campaign.

that's a mighty big hunk of elephant shit yer chawin' on... you sure you wanna swallow it?
posted by quonsar at 4:25 PM on September 5, 2004

i know--this is rich, hearing campaign advice from repubs.
posted by amberglow at 4:28 PM on September 5, 2004

techgnollogic - once and for all could you or any of your buddies explain to me how someone can injure themselves with a FUCKING GRENADE LAUNCHER on purpose? Any time you are ready.
posted by longbaugh at 4:31 PM on September 5, 2004

Oat, I hear that a lot, and it really surprises me. I mean, Vietnam service was a big, fat deal when Bill Clinton was running for office; why he was a big, pinko draft-dodger, and that was priority numero uno for the GOP at the time. Why, suddenly, when the tables are turned, is Vietnam service ancient history that does not matter? Kerry's not the one who made Vietnam an important issue; every single Republican that ever slammed Clinton for not passing up a Rhodes Scholarship to go get shot did that. And last time I checked, turnabout was fair play.
posted by willpie at 4:38 PM on September 5, 2004

it's the CENTERPIECE of his campaign.

that's a mighty big hunk of elephant shit yer chawin' on...

Does "I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty" ring any bells?
posted by techgnollogic at 4:39 PM on September 5, 2004

yup. excellent jab at Chimpy McAWOL. meaningless beyond that.
posted by quonsar at 4:44 PM on September 5, 2004

From the article:

But to the consternation of campaign strategists, the navy has agreed to a request by Judicial Watch, a bipartisan lobby group [emphasis mine], for a full inquiry.

OK, first I have to use a fake registration, then I have to say No to half-a-dozen cookies, and this is the coverage they post? Oh, please.
posted by alumshubby at 4:44 PM on September 5, 2004

once and for all could you or any of your buddies explain to me how someone can injure themselves with a FUCKING GRENADE LAUNCHER on purpose?

I have never claimed that he injured himself on purpose. Why do you spread these vicious accusations?
posted by techgnollogic at 4:44 PM on September 5, 2004

If you accept that his service is the centerpiece of Kerry's campaign, then you must also accept that John Kerry is the centerpiece of the Bush campaign.
How sad is that, for an incumbent?
posted by bashos_frog at 4:46 PM on September 5, 2004

If you accept that his service is the centerpiece of Kerry's campaign, then you must also accept that John Kerry is the centerpiece of the Bush campaign.
How sad is that, for an incumbent?

Wiskey Tango Foxtrot.
posted by paleocon at 4:48 PM on September 5, 2004

I don't know, Oat. Growing up I always hated the way veterans were deified and idealized, but there was always a line I would never have crossed.

I would never mock a veteran's service to his or her country, nor belittle his sacrfices, because I really believe that I owe each of them at least some respect. Even Bob Dole who I hate and had to opportunity to insult.

Goddamn it, you don't slander veterans, old-people, teachers and other people who have put their asses on the line for your community. You don't have to like them, you can criticize them, but you should respect what they did, unless you have some pretty fucking good evidence that they committed a war crime.

Judicial watch better damn well have some evidence, because this is just not right.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 4:51 PM on September 5, 2004

alamshubby:
- i didn't see any registration or acceptance forms. I also sent a quick email to [e-mail]: "Judicial Watch, a bipartisan lobby group..."

"Why do you say that? It appears to be a conservative funded & led group. "

I will post any response (no-one hold their breath...)
posted by dash_slot- at 4:52 PM on September 5, 2004

They're not looking at how he got the Purple Hearts, but rather that his DD214 listed on his web site claims that he received a Silver Star with a Combat V, but the Silver Star is never issued with a Combat V and it's against Navy regulations to do so.

Whenever Silver Stars have been listed with Combat V's in other military records, they've been found to have been falsified.

Also, Kerry's DD215 claims that he received four bronze stars, but official Navy records show only two.
posted by wrffr at 4:52 PM on September 5, 2004

To be one-upped by quonsar - truly, it almost makes this post good news . . .

No way gompa; quonsar is a talentless bore; he thinks brevity and random words are enough to bring a hearty chuckle to the MeFi readership. How misguided this Q-chump is.
posted by SpaceCadet at 4:53 PM on September 5, 2004

paleocon:
Need evidence?
How many times was Kerry mentioned during the RNC, vs. Bush being mentioned at the DNC?
How many times is Kerry shown on georgewbush.com vs. Bush on johnkerry.com?
Bush's entire campaign seems to be "John Kerry: bad man (and watch out for the terrorists under your bed!)"

BTW: Both Whisky and Whiskey are valid spellings, yours is not.
posted by bashos_frog at 4:58 PM on September 5, 2004

/me smocks SpaceCadet around with a gondola.
posted by quonsar at 5:00 PM on September 5, 2004

bashos,

Thanks for the spellbitch. You ask a lot of questions. Perhaps you know the answers to them, allowing as how they would be the unmentioned underpinnings for your original logical non sequitur.
posted by paleocon at 5:07 PM on September 5, 2004

To be one-upped by quonsar - truly, it almost makes this post good news . . .

No way gompa; quonsar is a talentless bore; he thinks brevity and random words are enough to bring a hearty chuckle to the MeFi readership. How misguided this Q-chump is.

There's a lot to be said for brevity.
posted by 327.ca at 5:22 PM on September 5, 2004

Still, a new book says George W Bush orchestrated the anthrax affair to cover up a scandal, that George H Bush - Dubya's Daddy - fucked little boys, and more. The exciting part is that apparently Dubya had a gay relationship with a guy called Victor Ash, who is now the Mayor of Knoxville. This was all revealed by Sharon Bush, the ex-wife of Dubya's younger brother Neil. Buy a copy for your friends. Let's see how far that post-convention 'bounce' lasts.
posted by tapeguy at 5:24 PM on September 5, 2004

Paleocon,

On the front page of the georgewbush site, kerry is mentioned at least 4 times. Bush isn't mentioned at all on the Kerry site. it's not a stretch at all to say that Bush has made the center of his campaign John Kerry (while in most election years, an incumbant would be touting his successes).

Luckily, he has so many.
posted by drezdn at 5:28 PM on September 5, 2004

Does "I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty" ring any bells?

Not to any of the Republicans who dodged serving enirely I would guess.
posted by longbaugh at 5:29 PM on September 5, 2004

here's what Clinton had to talk about when he wanted to get reelected: Clinton began by thanking Al Gore, Hilary, the City of Chicago, and the delegates, after which he shared some brief impressions from his train-trip to the convention.  Then, only a few minutes in, he began firing off a fusillade of facts, figures and statistics: 4.4 million first-time homeowners, "hundreds of thousands" of new women-owned businesses, 10 million new jobs, and 10 million recipients of a recently increased minimum wage.  Clinton told the country of 25 million Americans with new protections on their health insurance, 40 million with pension protections, and 15 million who had received a tax cut.  12 million had taken advantage of the Family and Medical Leave Act and life expectancy for those infected with HIV had doubled in just four years.  10 million students were saving money on college loans, 100,000 new police officers were on the streets, and 60,000 felons were prevented from purchasing handguns due to the Brady bill.  1.8 million fewer people were on welfare than when he took office and child support collections had increased 40%.  The federal budget deficit had been cut by 60%.  197 toxic waste dumps were cleaned up in three years, more than the previous twelve years combined.  And a 40% funding increase was modernizing weapons systems.  

and Bush?
posted by amberglow at 5:37 PM on September 5, 2004

Whenever Silver Stars have been listed with Combat V's in other military records, they've been found to have been falsified.

Cite? I'm think that some record droid, after typing "Bronze Star with V" screwed up.

Also, Kerry's DD215 claims that he received four bronze stars, but official Navy records show only two.

One: Kerry's DD215 is an official Navy record.

Two: Kerry's DD215 says no such thing. It says, in the corrections:

Delete: Vietnam Service Medal
Add: Vietnam Service Medal with four bronze stars.

This is not saying that Kerry won 4 Bronze Stars, with or without V devices. It's saying that he was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal with 4 bronze stars. There are 17 campaigns in the VSM, if you took part in one -- even for a day -- you earned the medal, with one bronze star. If you took part in two, you earned the medal, with two bronze stars. If you took part in seven, you'd be awarded the Vietnam Service Medal with silver star and two bronze Star.

Kerry was involved, apparently, in four of them, but he was cited on his DD214 for only having one award. The DD215 corrects that.

Further evidence that this is bullshit. If Kerry was trying to pretend he won this mystical "V" device on his Silver Star, then maybe the citation of award [PDF] would have said that. It doesn't, it refers only to the "Silver Star". Note that the citation for his Bronze Star [PDF] specifically states that he may wear the "Combat Distinguishing Device" -- or, in the order from his area commander, "is authorized to wear the Combat V."

Furthermore, it is *not* a violation of the UCMJ to have a clerk screw up a record. It is, however, a viloation to wear an award you were never given.
posted by eriko at 5:37 PM on September 5, 2004

drezden,

Actually, a word search of "Kerry" hits only three times on the front page of the website you list. And, it's to the same link. It's a pretty busy website and I think most people would agree that Kerry is a bit of side topic there.
posted by paleocon at 5:38 PM on September 5, 2004

Brevity is the soul.
posted by ODiV at 5:38 PM on September 5, 2004

Bush is mentioned four times on Kerry's front page
posted by paleocon at 5:43 PM on September 5, 2004

Here's a link to Kerry's DD214 and DD215, FWIW.

Also, if someone made a mistake like eriko suggested, that's a pretty big mistake not to be corrected by now. (The DD215 was done in Feb 2000.)
posted by armage at 5:43 PM on September 5, 2004

er, sorry, 2001, not 2000.
posted by armage at 5:44 PM on September 5, 2004

The Silver star isn't given with an additional combat V because the Silver Star is only given as a combat citation, therefore saying "Silver Star with a Combat V" isn't deceptive, and is in error only to the extent that the phrase itself is *redundant*.

Of course, that's facts, which mean nothing in this made-up-shit attack fielded by intellectually moronic and dishonest wingnut tools.
posted by Reverend Mykeru at 5:49 PM on September 5, 2004

yup. listen to the man of God. : >
posted by amberglow at 5:51 PM on September 5, 2004

You and I must mean different things by front pages. If you type johnkerry.com, the first thing that shows up does not mention bush. If you type georgewbush.com, the first thing that shows up has at least three pictures of John kerry (didn't read the complete text of the Bush page). The page you linked too on the Kerry site has only one picture of Bush.

In addition, leading up to Bush's speech at the convention, Kerry had been mentioned far more times at the RNC convention than Bush was mentioned at the DNC. (cite: the front page of either the NYT, the Chicago Tribune or USA Today, I'm pretty sure it was USA Today though).
posted by drezdn at 5:54 PM on September 5, 2004

Wow. Richard Nixon's about to pop out of his grave and ask reporters "Hey, look at me, I ain't so bad am I?"
posted by clevershark at 5:55 PM on September 5, 2004

props to eriko and armage for doing their research.
posted by destro at 5:59 PM on September 5, 2004

What. The. Fuck.

A lot of countries out there are proud of their often hard won democracy. A lot of countries regard voting in elections as a cherished right. Candidates come offering platforms, policies, ideologies and inspiration. Citizens become excited about the different alternatives for the future. Leaders are judged on their vision and what they can do for the country.

All Americans seem to do is bitch and moan about an almost completely irrelevant war fought 35 years ago with pathetic oneupmanship, offering nothing more to the voters than "He's a fraud, fear the terrorists", or "Hey, I'm just like him, but not quite as bad."

Build a god damn fucking bridge.
posted by Jimbob at 6:07 PM on September 5, 2004

paleocon, I don't think it can be honestly denied that Bush isn't running a Kerry-centric campaign. While you might want to pick at drezdn's exact number count, I'm sure you haven't forgotten what Bush's website looked like just a couple weeks ago.

And talking "mentions" is silly in any case. You're lying through your teeth if you think that Bush is anywhere near as prominent on johnkerry.com as Kerry is on Bush's site. Even assuming equal wordcount, Kerry's Bush mentions are little 10pt links; Bush's Kerry mentions are headline-sized features and graphics.
posted by rafter at 6:17 PM on September 5, 2004

Build a god damn fucking bridge.
to Canada?
posted by amberglow at 6:19 PM on September 5, 2004

Jesus Christ. Can someone direct me to the planet where the sane people are? Cause I'm all packed up and ready to go. Anytime.
posted by jokeefe at 6:20 PM on September 5, 2004

Build a god damn fucking bridge.
to Canada?

Christ, no! We're working on a tunnel to Mexico.
posted by 327.ca at 6:21 PM on September 5, 2004

This is in no way aimed at turning people against Kerry. It's an intentionally sleazy act, whose sole purpose is to make people completely disgusted with this election. Rove knows that the vast majority of undecided will go to Kerry. Their only hope is to make people so disgusted that they don't vote.
posted by jpoulos at 6:22 PM on September 5, 2004

327, you guys and Mexico should totally be invading us about now--we're really distracted, as you can see, and it would actually bring us together.
posted by amberglow at 6:24 PM on September 5, 2004

amber, we want no part of it. none.

For me this election has been a black comedy, but this is just too much. The worst part are the wanna-be machiavellians who play along with this dirty bullshit because it's "their team" doing it. Yet they'll get fucked just as hard by Bush's economic policies as the rest of the US. They'll just be smiling all the while.
posted by Space Coyote at 6:31 PM on September 5, 2004

you can all stay at my place. i have popcorn.
posted by kv at 6:34 PM on September 5, 2004

This isn't even surprising, to some of us--the Repubs play very dirty--from Watergate on. The only silver lining is that they get caught, or overreach and get voted out.

ok--whole new country at kv's house! (hope you have more than one bathroom) : >
posted by amberglow at 6:35 PM on September 5, 2004

Could Bush be more corrupt?
posted by fleener at 6:38 PM on September 5, 2004

careful fleener, that might be interpreted as a challenge.
posted by Space Coyote at 6:43 PM on September 5, 2004

The People's Republic of Popcornistan.
posted by elwoodwiles at 6:45 PM on September 5, 2004

posted by quonsar at 6:50 PM on September 5, 2004

Willpie, no doubt there is a load of hypocrisy coming from the Republican side, but I wasn't speaking as a Republican. I'm a Democrat--been one for 20 years. I was mad that Repubs went after Clinton for not serving in Vietnam--and I was stomping mad during the whole Clinton witch hunt. But Kerry put his Vietnam record front and center ("reporting for duty!"), and if he's gonna whine every time someone challenges him on it, if he's gonna continue to refuse full disclosure of his record, if he's gonna continue to refuse to be "questioned" on the very reason he's foregrounded as to why we should vote for him...well, from my perspective, it just look bad on him.
posted by Oat at 6:56 PM on September 5, 2004

the only one to ever kill a man is Bush's fucking wife

Huh???
posted by kayjay at 6:57 PM on September 5, 2004

Huh???

can you say 'drunk driving fatality'? our first lady can!
posted by quonsar at 6:58 PM on September 5, 2004

Hey! How 'bout that Vietnam War! Kerry is such a hero. Yes, he is! Hahahahahahah
posted by paleocon at 6:59 PM on September 5, 2004

i totally support Not Bush. therefore, Kerry is an irrelevancy.
posted by quonsar at 7:03 PM on September 5, 2004

Hey! How 'bout that Vietnam War! Kerry is such a hero. Yes, he is! Hahahahahahah
posted by Space Coyote at 7:12 PM on September 5, 2004

I want my country back.
posted by Nelson at 7:12 PM on September 5, 2004

Let's see what people have to say about their opponent's Vietnam-era record, shall we?

First, the Bush team:

Bush: Asked if he believed that he "served on the same level of heroism" with Kerry, Bush replied: "No, I don't. I think him going to Vietnam was more heroic than my flying fighter jets. He was in harm's way and I wasn't."

Bush: Bush praised Kerry's military service in Vietnam. "I think Senator Kerry served admirably, and he ought to be proud of his record," he said.

Bush: "Senator Kerry is justifiably proud of his record in Vietnam and he should be," [Bush] said on CNN's "Larry King Live."

Cheney: I think everybody respects John Kerry's service in Vietnam. It's never really been an issue.

Cheney: Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday it would be wrong for him to judge Sen. John Kerry's service during the war or his anti-war activities later, given that he avoided military service altogether. Cheney was asked if Kerry should apologize for saying that troops in Vietnam committed atrocities, testimony that riled some officers who served with him. "I didn't have to serve in Vietnam and I try to make it a point always to thank those who did for their service, regardless of what their views are or exactly where they served during that period of time or under what circumstances," the vice president said on "The Sean Hannity Show," a syndicated radio program. "I really don't think it's for me to be trying to judge his behavior then," he added.

White House strategist Karl Rove: Rove also said Kerry "served with valor" in Vietnam.

Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie: “We have always honored John Kerry’s service in Vietnam,” said Republican national Chairman Ed Gillespie.

And then we have Kerry's side:

John Kerry: John Kerry, a decorated Navy veteran criticized by Republicans for his anti-war activities during the Vietnam era, lashed out at President Bush on Monday for failing to prove whether he fulfilled his commitment to the National Guard during the same period. "If George Bush wants to ask me questions about that through his surrogates, he owes America an explanation about whether or not he showed up for duty in the National Guard. Prove it. That's what we ought to have,'' Kerry told NBC News in an interview.

Kerry: (referring to Cheney) I’m not going to have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have"

Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee: "George Bush never served in our military in our country. He didn't show up when he should have showed up."

Democratic strategist, Mary Anne Marsh: "Bush betrayed this country about why we went to war in Iraq. . .just like he betrayed them when he didn't fight in Vietnam."

Now who is it that's playing dirty here?
posted by techgnollogic at 7:12 PM on September 5, 2004

wait -- how can a letter that was provably falsified instigate a pentagon inquiry? are we sure this is true?
posted by sodalinda at 7:15 PM on September 5, 2004

Now who is it that's playing dirty here?
Bush and Cheney, for sending surrogates out to smear Kerry's record while praising it for the cameras--duh!
posted by amberglow at 7:16 PM on September 5, 2004

jokeefe: not all democracies are as corrupt as yours. Parts of this planet are still working quite civilly.
posted by dash_slot- at 7:20 PM on September 5, 2004

techgnollogic feigns naïveté. Next, for $50, he's going to crawl up a woman's uterus and stay there for 6 hours.
posted by Space Coyote at 7:22 PM on September 5, 2004

Sorry to burst your bubble, amberglow, but it's a free country, and Bush and Cheney can't stop people from saying mean things about John Kerry. The least Kerry could do is rise above it, instead of joining in the mudslinging (and whining about it at the same time).
posted by techgnollogic at 7:24 PM on September 5, 2004

Vote techgnollogic , because words speak louder than actions.
posted by bashos_frog at 7:26 PM on September 5, 2004

techgno, try reading what i wrote--they send their surrogates out to do their dirty work. It's not about stopping people from speaking.
posted by amberglow at 7:31 PM on September 5, 2004

I know it's hard for you, having to defend a cowardly failure like Bush, but try paying attention, ok?
posted by amberglow at 7:33 PM on September 5, 2004

Next, for $50, he's going to crawl up a woman's uterus and stay there for 6 hours.

must be one of them bush twins.
posted by quonsar at 7:33 PM on September 5, 2004

Why do you need to manufacture fictions about "George Bush's surrogates" to explain why Kerry is playing dirty?
posted by techgnollogic at 7:49 PM on September 5, 2004

jokeefe: not all democracies are as corrupt as yours. Parts of this planet are still working quite civilly.
posted by dash_slot- at 7:20 PM PST on September 5

And I live in one of them, thank god. But the power struggles in Rome had a ripple effect on the rest of the Empire, no? What goes on in Washington has a tendency to be felt elsewhere, even in the-- relatively-- pretty-damn-near perfect city and country where I live.
posted by jokeefe at 7:52 PM on September 5, 2004

It doesn't matter if Kerry takes the High road or the low road. When he takes the high road, he is accused of being ineffectual (ie. "if he can't squash the Swift Boat Vets how can he squash the terrorists"), if he takes the low road ("Why can't he take the high road?")
posted by drezdn at 7:52 PM on September 5, 2004

Why do you need to manufacture fictions about "George Bush's surrogates" to explain why Kerry is playing dirty?

turn that around and you'll have something--otherwise it's very very funny, and very very sad.
posted by amberglow at 7:52 PM on September 5, 2004

You've got to draw incorporeal connections between George W. Bush - who has praised John Kerry's military service - and critics of Kerry's service in order to explain why it's not John Kerry that's playing dirty, despite judgemental criticisms of Bush's and Cheney's service coming out of Kerry's mouth.
posted by techgnollogic at 7:53 PM on September 5, 2004

Why do you need to manufacture fictions about "George Bush's surrogates" to explain why Kerry is playing dirty?

*Brain explodes at lunacy of this*

techgnollogic, no email address? That's not playing fair either.
posted by jokeefe at 7:54 PM on September 5, 2004

techgnollogic = paleocon + puberty;
posted by quonsar at 7:56 PM on September 5, 2004

techgnollogic, I salute your misdirection ploy. Well played. Except that telling the truth isn't a smear ... its the truth. Which is the truth about Kerry; What the President, the Vice-President, John McCain and others have said, or the bullshit accusations that you promote without standing behind? Which is it? Put it out there simple-like and then shut the fuck up.
posted by Wulfgar! at 7:56 PM on September 5, 2004

oh, drezdn, you just reminded of this: "This is the third day in a row that Code Pink has penetrated the convention,'' she said. "My question to President Bush is, if he can't secure his own convention, how can they bring security to their own nation?''

techgno, Kerry's not afraid to talk for himself--Bush, on the other hand, lies to America in public, and uses surrogates to do his dirty work, like the wimp he is. His wimpy daddy did the same thing, and lost.
posted by amberglow at 7:57 PM on September 5, 2004

Why do you need to manufacture fictions about "George Bush's surrogates"
posted by Space Coyote at 7:59 PM on September 5, 2004

You've got to draw incorporeal connections between George W. Bush - who has praised John Kerry's military service - and critics of Kerry's service in order to explain why it's not John Kerry that's playing dirty, .

Plus, John Kerry made the comments, which are true... How is telling the truth "playing dirty?"
posted by drezdn at 7:59 PM on September 5, 2004

Come on techgnollogic, how difficult a question was it? Do you support the President or do you support something else? Take a stand, hot shot. Quit waffling and tell us: Was the President telling the truth about John Kerry's service or not?
posted by Wulfgar! at 8:03 PM on September 5, 2004

Is this just the trippiest moment in recent history or what.
(how long before this stuff wears off again?)
posted by Fupped Duck at 8:10 PM on September 5, 2004

fictions!!!
posted by Satapher at 8:14 PM on September 5, 2004

(how long before this stuff wears off again?)

god, i wish it were that easy... anyone out there have any recipes on how to counteract a bad trip?
posted by moonbird at 8:31 PM on September 5, 2004

voting always works ; >
posted by amberglow at 8:35 PM on September 5, 2004

I think Bush, Cheney, Rove, Gillespie, and many other members of this administration are right to praise Kerry's service to his country and respect the sacrifices he made in Vietnam. None of them served with Kerry, and it would be wrong for them to question him about Vietnam.

I think it's terribly unfortunate that Kerry has seen fit to criticize and attack Bush and members of his administration for their service to their country, or their lack of military experience. John Edwards has no military experience. Bill Clinton had no military experience. Lots of honest, hardworking, patriotic Americans have no military service. It's just in terribly poor taste to criticize such things, I think. Millions of men declined or avoided military service in Vietnam, but that doesn't make them traitors to their country.

“We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways.” That's what John Kerry said in 1992. It's too bad he no longer feels that way.
posted by techgnollogic at 8:37 PM on September 5, 2004

That's quite a spin, but total bullshit. Tell us about the bandages at the RNC, for one example out of many of disparaging the military service of millions.
posted by amberglow at 8:42 PM on September 5, 2004

Hwuh? Just because "many served in many different ways" doesn't mean that someone who slipped into the National Guard with the help of his powerful daddy's friends, and then clearly skipped out on his service should get a free pass.

techgno, congrats, because I sincerely can't tell if you're as deluded as you come off or if you're just perpetually trolling. Well played, I guess.
posted by soyjoy at 8:43 PM on September 5, 2004

*slaps thigh*

excellently portrayed!
posted by quonsar at 8:43 PM on September 5, 2004

You're avoiding the question. Did the President of the United States tell the truth about John Kerry's service or not? It's a simple yes or no kind of thing.

Or would you rather debate that they did the "right thing" by praising in ignorance? We can talk about either you want, but I wish you'd just answer the fucking question.

Come on techgno, show some courage and take a stand, for pity's sake. Answer the simple question: Did Bush tell the truthn about John Kerry's service to America?
posted by Wulfgar! at 8:47 PM on September 5, 2004

Reading The Age this morning I was suprised to see this story and the bi-partisan claim, but there was some other potentially more interesting news on manipulation in politics: Italy blames France for uranium hoax! Also, a claim in one of the several reports on the Russian school tragedy that there were actually no Arabs involved, caught my attention.
posted by Onanist at 8:49 PM on September 5, 2004

technologoogisogic : how can you say he no longer feels that way? youre fuckin sleeping with the filter my friend... presidential campaigns are bloated horse carcasses, look beyond the tv screen, jake
posted by Satapher at 8:54 PM on September 5, 2004

“We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways.” That's what John Kerry said in 1992.

Personally, I'd like a link to prove that that quote comes from John Kerry. I'm not saying that it did or didn't, I just want some verification from such a waffler as techgnollogic, who seems incapable of answering simple "yes or no" questions about his chosen candidate.
posted by Wulfgar! at 8:59 PM on September 5, 2004

I think Bush, Cheney, Rove, Gillespie, and many other members of this administration are right to praise Kerry's service to his country and respect the sacrifices he made in Vietnam. None of them served with Kerry, and it would be wrong for them to question him about Vietnam.

techgnoevasion? techgnowaffles?

Wulfgar's question - yes or no?

No more 'Kerry-esque' answers - emulate your straight talking cowboy in the white house, why dontcha?
posted by bashos_frog at 8:59 PM on September 5, 2004

I assure you, US Americans, that the world watchs in stunned bewilderment: how can you call this farce-beyond-words "democracy"?
posted by five fresh fish at 9:03 PM on September 5, 2004

Uh, yes, wulfgar... I think president Bush's characterization of Kerry's service is correct. I thought I said so. I think Kerry deserves respect for enlisting in the Navy and fighting in Vietnam. Sorry for all the nuance.

I don't think Bush is trying to trick me into thinking Kerry served honorably, and if it were to become apparent that Kerry did not serve honorably - like if he committed some kind of atrocities or something - then I think both Bush and I will be totally surprised. If it did turn out that way, I won't be surprised if a bunch of you acuse Bush of lying when he praised Kerry's record and misleading the country regarding John Kerry's service in Vietnam. You're accusing him of lying about it now.

And Jesus, Wulfgar, learn to fucking google.
posted by techgnollogic at 9:14 PM on September 5, 2004

Quick questions for everyone. Keep the answers to about ten words or less.

What one thing makes BUSH right for President?

What one thing makes BUSH wrong for President?

What one thing makes KERRY right for President?

What one thing makes KERRY wrong for President?

Remember, single short key points only. I'll collate them in the end. It will be interesting to compare.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:25 PM on September 5, 2004

... and I supposed you believe that Bush was just shocked, shocked, I tell you, to hear that other groups were maligning Kerry's Vietnam service. Why, to hear of such a thing!

Notwithstanding that the people sliming Kerry are tied to the Bush campaign, and that it's the same set of tactics they used against McCain and Cleland.
posted by Chanther at 9:30 PM on September 5, 2004

1. the potential for his assassination.
2. the existence of sentient beings anywhere in the universe.
3. he's not bush.
4. his horse-face.
posted by quonsar at 9:34 PM on September 5, 2004

Off topic:

fff, we don't. If we're at all educated, we will call it what it was meant to be ... a Republic based on Democratic socialism. But the fact that "Socialism" has taken on a McCarthy-esque feel makes that word icky, so now we just call it a Democracy or a Republic. Either way, our Federal government serves as an entity that fosters and supports the social well being, hence "socialism", and it is formed by the vote of the populace as a mandate for the representatives in the republic, hence "Democratic Socialism". Anybody who thinks differently is either very stupid concerning history, or is a modern supporter of the Republican party (read "clueless").

The scariest part of all is that we now have a Federal administration that thinks we can foster state's right through Federal mandate (read Bush's RNC acceptance speech and you'll know exactly what I'm talking about ... state control of education through federal mandates governing educators ... WTF???). We have a federal administration that fosters privatization of essential services, and then protects and hides the provision of said services under the blanket of Federal need. We have a federal government that offers federal moneys to those private entities (corporations) that support provision of national defense support and construction, even offering federla dollors to protect them in war torn areas that benefit national (Administration) interest regardless of the deficit cost to the country. We have a Federal administration that seems hell bent on controlling provision of public services based on national interest, and legislation that supports those corporate entities that foster federal control of information (Orin Hatch is a whore), control of energy, control of media (allowing Rupert Murdoch to rape and pillage), control food supply (subsidies to corporate providers that outstrip anything provided to local family agriculturalists), and even control of the leagl establishment, (one hunting trip and your secret's safe with me). Gee, that seems a hell of a lot like National Socialism. Now, what was the German term for that?

(/off topic)


On preview:

I know how to Google, techgnollogic. I also know how to take people at their word, which you obviously find challenging. You agree with the President that Kerry served honorably. Now shut up about it. You've said your piece.

I haven't accused the President of lying; you have, by at all supporting the bullshit that comes from those who try and denigrate Kerry's service record (what this thread was about). Support the opinion of your chosen candidate, or face the consequences of not doing so. The choice is yours.
posted by Wulfgar! at 9:35 PM on September 5, 2004

What one thing makes BUSH right for President?

Maybe we'll see the end of the right blaming everything on liberals (although, I realized they will probably continue the excuse into 2008 with the claim that it takes time to undo everything the liberals did).

What one thing makes BUSH wrong for President?

Unfunded Mandates.

What one thing makes KERRY right for President?

Full funding for education programs

What one thing makes KERRY wrong for President?

4-8 years of Regnery books about how Kerry is eating babies.
posted by drezdn at 9:47 PM on September 5, 2004

Q/A

1. John Kerry
2. George Bush
3. George Bush
4. John Kerry
posted by Satapher at 9:53 PM on September 5, 2004

In response to this:

1) He drags wood good in photo-op.

(He makes Republicanism so appealing and yet divides the Republican party so much that it will callapse under the weight of its own contradictory stances ... especially if he gets re-elected.)

2) He's been incompetant in everything he's ever tried.

3) He will read his PDB's.

4) Will face an ignorant electorate that promotes a useless congress.
posted by Wulfgar! at 10:02 PM on September 5, 2004

Sorry, guys, I think quonsar already took the gold on this one.
posted by soyjoy at 10:09 PM on September 5, 2004

techgnollogic is following the malkin path of raising aspersions about kerry's service (if it turned out he committed atrocities or something) with no evidence to that effect.

Turnabout: You know, if it turns out George Bush really did murder a hooker back in '72 I would be very surprised and disappointed.
posted by Space Coyote at 10:26 PM on September 5, 2004

and you know, those livestock rumors are so base and disgusting i won't even repeat them here.
posted by quonsar at 10:36 PM on September 5, 2004

besides, my veterinary friend said it's physically impossible.
posted by quonsar at 10:37 PM on September 5, 2004

even for a texan.
posted by quonsar at 10:37 PM on September 5, 2004

One things for certain, this is going to be a horrible two months for all but the most cynical and apathetic of us.

Phew! For a second there, I thought I had something to worry about!

Apathetic as I am, I'm rooting for Kerry to win just so I can see the looks on the faces of the left when they realize that Kerry will not end the war, will not kill the Patriot act, will free neither Mumia nor Tibet, will gangbang your civil liberties like a posse of drunken frat boys and spend your tax mokey like a coke-addled starlet on corporate subsidies for his best buddies. You think after Bush it can't get worse? The laughing fates take those words as a personal challenge.

Seriously, anyone at this point who thinks voting (voting! with Diebold!) means a goddamn thing is a moron. The fact that there is nobody marching on Washington with torches and pitchforks at this particular interval in American history makes me think we've fucking lost whatever vestiges of anything worthy we ever had in this country and that the U.S. is about to go the way of the Roman Empire. Anybody want to start a pool on how long we've got before there's a horse in the Senate?
posted by IshmaelGraves at 10:52 PM on September 5, 2004

I don't think Bush is trying to trick me into thinking Kerry served honorably

I seriously doubt anyone's here to make that charge!!

Since when is JW "bipartisan" anyway? they tried clogging up the courts with frivolous, nuisance lawsuits against the Clinton administration for the better part of the 8 years during which the man was in office...
posted by clevershark at 11:05 PM on September 5, 2004

will gangbang your civil liberties like a posse of drunken frat boys and spend your tax mokey like a coke-addled starlet on corporate subsidies for his best buddies.

If Americans want that they can opt to keep the drunken coke-addled frat boy who's spent the past 4 years writing a blank check for corporate subsidies.

I don't get your point, which is perhaps due to the fact that you start the paragraph with Kerry and end up with Bush.
posted by clevershark at 11:07 PM on September 5, 2004

Hogwash, Space Coyote! Anyone who says John Kerry committed atrocities in Vietnam is a disgraceful fool and deserves not one speck of our attention or respect. Don't you agree?
posted by techgnollogic at 11:24 PM on September 5, 2004

Rove knows that the vast majority of undecided will go to Kerry. Their only hope is to make people so disgusted that they don't vote.

Oh dear.

Seriously, anyone at this point who thinks voting (voting! with Diebold!) means a goddamn thing is a moron. The fact that there is nobody marching on Washington with torches and pitchforks at this particular interval in American history makes me think we've fucking lost whatever vestiges of anything worthy we ever had in this country and that the U.S. is about to go the way of the Roman Empire.

Oh dear.

It'd be comedy, if it weren't for the corpses. Ah hell, even with the corpses, it's comedy. The 'merkins are entertaining if nothing else, aren't they, folks? A big hand for America!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:46 PM on September 5, 2004

I heart Wulfgar.

I'm just saying.

Carry on.
posted by jokeefe at 12:29 AM on September 6, 2004

The fact that there is nobody marching on Washington with torches and pitchforks at this particular interval in American history makes me think we've fucking lost whatever vestiges of anything worthy we ever had in this country and that the U.S. is about to go the way of the Roman Empire.

Well, why aren't you marching with torches and pitchforks? Now extrapolate that to the rest of the population.
posted by reklaw at 12:32 AM on September 6, 2004

We are the Nazis, but with nuclear weapons. The world doesn't stand a chance. This time, the Axis wins.
posted by hincandenza at 1:07 AM on September 6, 2004

Why did Rome fall ?

Rome had always had its fair share of bad emperors. Caligula, Nero, Commodus are such examples. But there always followed good emperors to correct their errors. At Rome's end however, there was really no good rulers. For example great generals like Stilicho were killed because the emperor feared losing his throne to them.

Also important to the weakening of the Romans was that they began to get more and more civilized. Civilized people were not as good warriors on the battlefields as barbarians. For a long time the Romans had their own barbarians. Gauls, Illyrians, Belgians, Helvetians, Germans, etc.; they all joined the Roman legions. But soon they too were living like Romans. They enjoyed the fruits of Roman civilization and hence became less barbarous, - and less able to fight the barbarian Goths, Vandals, Sueves, etc..
Another important reason is perhaps that of Roman unity. The early Romans who built the empire stood united. By the end of course Rome had two capitals, Rome and Constantinople, each with its own emperor. But to the earlier Romans, Rome had been something special, something they served. But the later Romans only sought power for themselves. Almost every military commanders secretely had his eye on the throne and was ready to overthrow the emperor and take power himself. The armies spent a lot of time fighting each other for power in Rome, rather than fighting the enemy.
To this cataolgue of troubles one needs also to add economic problems. Rome was spending more than it could afford. The free food rations for the poor of Rome and Constantinople were costing a fortune. The Purchasing of exotic spices and silk from the orient ment that over time Rome was spending its gold on overseas luxuries. Gold which didn't return. Soon Rome didn't have enough gold to produce coins with.
to fall.
posted by Espoo2 at 1:31 AM on September 6, 2004

posted by Pretty_Generic at 1:43 AM on September 6, 2004

ishmaelgraves ... do horses' asses count? ... and yes, i feel your pain, brother ... the left are in for a rude surprise if that manniquin kerry gets elected

and my answers to fff's questions

(1-4) he's been bought by our corporate masters
posted by pyramid termite at 6:39 AM on September 6, 2004

Watch out, techgnollogic! It's a trap! They're on OBL's side! Run, run for your life! Run, and don't ever look back!
posted by Ptrin at 7:47 AM on September 6, 2004

What one thing makes BUSH right for President?
Well, he makes some of the more insane, radical, fringe elements of the US happy, and therefore not bombing abortion clinics or killing us fags.

What one thing makes BUSH wrong for President?
He panders to that same element, writing religious beliefs into law, removing information they disagree with, or trying to amend the Constitution. And he's a complete failure at everything he touches--a reverse Midas.

What one thing makes KERRY right for President?
He's reasonable--listening to and caring about others, even if they don't share his religion or beliefs.

What one thing makes KERRY wrong for President?
His face--which looks like a wax mannequin left out in the sun too long, or a character in a Grant Wood painting.
posted by amberglow at 8:10 AM on September 6, 2004

The fact that there is nobody marching on Washington with torches and pitchforks at this particular interval in American history makes me think we've fucking lost whatever vestiges of anything worthy we ever had in this country and that the U.S.

Well, DUH!

Here is why:

Stuff. Yup stuff.

In the 'bad old days' before databases to 'check you out for employment' if you did something in one town, you could move to another town and with some hard work re-establish yourself.

Today, the database of your past follows you. So if you oppose the Repucrats, it is all good when the Demopublicans are in charge. But when the Demopublicans lose out and Repucrats are in power it is payback time via the IRS, local building code violations, et la.

Example: Local state tax agent would every year get 'written up' for not having clean gutters. Her alderman is now out of office - serving time for kickbacks I believe, and now no more gutter writeups. Such a small petty example to be sure, but instructional none the less.

If you are willing to live a life with no material items or income, you can fight the system. But as soon as you have anything, the system has a lever VS you.

It used to be you could fight and when the fight wore you down, you could move someplace else, work hard and not get bothered. This is the case no longer. If you stick your head up now, it is noted and it will follow you around.
posted by rough ashlar at 8:48 AM on September 6, 2004

Given the lack of serious answers to the questions, I postulate that the election is decided on (a) simple-minded prejudice, rather than actual issues; (b) telegenic presentation.

That's no way to choose a leader, guys.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:20 AM on September 6, 2004

Surrogates! Surrogates! Surrogates?

Reporters and pundits keep going beyond the evidence to blur the lines between the Bush campaign and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group that has been critical of John Kerry's Vietnam war record.

While news outlets including the New York Times have documented various connections between Bush and the so-called 527 group, there's no evidence that the President is behind the ads.

More common than such outright conflation are accusations that the SBWFT are "surrogates" of the Bush campaign. The word implies evidence that the SBVFT are working on behalf of or as substitutes for the President, but pundits often aren’t demonstrating that.

For instance, Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial page editor and syndicated columnist Cynthia Tucker said of the Swift Boat Vets, "Bush's surrogates lie to tarnish Kerry's medals." Other pundits who have referred to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth as Bush campaign "surrogates" are Hearst Newspapers reporter and columnist Helen Thomas and New Jersey Star-Ledger national political correspondent John Farmer.

Disturbingly, this spin mirrors the Kerry campaign's line on the Swift Boat Vets. The Democratic presidential candidate has called the group a "front for the Bush campaign." Other Democrats have directly referred to them as Bush "surrogates."

Surely pundits and reporters should present some evidence before repeating unproven political claims as fact.

I think you have a Dem talking points memo stuck to your heel there, amberglow.
posted by techgnollogic at 9:50 PM on September 6, 2004

... news outlets including the New York Times have documented various connections between Bush and the so-called 527 group...

I think you're taking this one salient fact and, well, " keep going beyond the evidence." No one, afaik, has ever claimed Bush has given direct instructions to the SBV.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:01 PM on September 6, 2004

No one, afaik, has ever claimed Bush has given direct instructions to the SBV.

What do you think John Kerry thinks calling SBVFT a "front for the Bush campaign" means?
posted by techgnollogic at 10:37 PM on September 6, 2004

Bush may not be giving orders to the Swift Boat Vets, but you didn't ask for that, you only asked for connections to George Bush. Of which, this thread (and your own quotes) have shown.

news outlets including the New York Times have documented various connections between Bush and the so-called 527 group.
posted by drezdn at 11:00 PM on September 6, 2004

As you said...

You've got to draw incorporeal connections between George W. Bush

It's been done.

If Bush isn't behind it, then doesn't it show that he's terrible at reigning in his inferiors (see also The Plame Leak)?
posted by drezdn at 11:04 PM on September 6, 2004

For FFF

Reason to vote for Bush...
-Mission to Mars

Reason not to vote for Bush...
-The fact that he was against the 9-11 commission, or his unwillingness to hold anyone accountable for any failure thus far

Reason to vote for Kerry,

-Kerry has vowed to push the FCC to limit media consolidation

Reason not to vote for Kerry

-The smearing of Howard Dean
posted by drezdn at 12:23 AM on September 7, 2004

Bush may not be giving orders to the Swift Boat Vets

Finally, you admit it. Indeed, he isn't, and you have no evidence to show otherwise. All you've got is Bush knowing a few Republicans in Texas. Excellent work, detective.
posted by techgnollogic at 7:44 AM on September 7, 2004

there are none so blind than those that will not see. (and Swift Boat Liars are so pre-convention--get with the program--it's Kitty Kelley now. You guys are way behind in smearing her.)
posted by amberglow at 8:00 AM on September 7, 2004

All you've got is Bush knowing a few Republicans in Texas.

If you're going to be that disingenous (ie. the fact that several of the people involved with the SBV were pretty high up in the campaign- such as on the Veterns' steering committee), than what's the point in arguing?

It's been shown that there's a connection between the Bush campaign and the group, you asked for a connection at first, you didn't ask for proof that Bush directly gave the order.
posted by drezdn at 8:33 AM on September 7, 2004

So would you agree that calling the group a "front for the Bush campaign" or "Bush's surrogates" is disingenuous as well?
posted by techgnollogic at 9:13 AM on September 7, 2004

No, I wouldn't. It's been demonstrated that people high up in the Bush campaign were involved with the Swift Boat group. Especially since the fact that Bush isn't making the attack directly would make them Bush's surrogates.

To me, the Swift Boat attack has the M.O. of a typical Rove attack. Apparently, you don't see it that way, and aside from digging up secret white house memos or tapes, I will be unable to convince you otherwise.
posted by drezdn at 10:00 AM on September 7, 2004

So you would agree that the term "plausible deniability" was a creation of the Bush family?

So you would agree that when Karl Rove is quoted as saying "We're gonna fuck 'em" he's not referring to sheep in Texas?

So you would agree that it is disingenuous as well to deny that it is not necessary for Dubya to publicly "give a direct order" to an individual or group in order to instigate or direct the actions of said group or individual? Think: COC.

So you would agree that telling the honest truth about another person is not equivalent to smearing that person with innuendo and outright lies?

So you would agree that whatever subject matter comes up you will continue to vigorously defend all things duhbya?

Are you paid for this?
posted by nofundy at 10:18 AM on September 7, 2004

As soon as I question the "surrogates" charge, drezdn retreats to 6 degrees of "connections" like he never meant Bush was behind the ads, and now he's back to "surrogates."

Just admit that you don't have any evidence that these people are following the Bush campaign's orders.

Bush has more connections to the Democratic Party than to the Swift Vets, but I don't see you accusing him of running their campaign. (Although sometimes it does seem like John Kerry is sinking his own boat so Bush doesn't have to.)
posted by techgnollogic at 11:16 AM on September 7, 2004

Good god, techgno. Bush doesn't even give instructions to his own campaign managers, I'm quite certain. That's why he hires a campaign manager. He takes instruction from him manager, not vice-versa. Sheesh.

The correct phrasing of your question needs to be "Do you believe the Bush campaign organizers are giving instruction or support to the SBV?"
posted by five fresh fish at 1:42 PM on September 7, 2004

fff, knowing all to well what Marc Racicot is capable of, (facilitating the sellout of the only profitable state owned energy concern such that Montana natural resources get raped yet again, and Montanans pay the price for the profit of others) I think you hit the nail right on the head.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:16 PM on September 7, 2004

Now who is it that's playing dirty here?

Um.. They're agreeing on the truth, aren't they? Kerry did honorable service in Vietnam (says Bush) and Bush didn't serve in Vietnam (says Kerry) My call? Neither one is playing dirty in the quotes you posted.
posted by hoborg at 3:17 PM on September 7, 2004